How is providing MORE views censorship?

Question

Now, I don;t think that the government should be going in and telling news networks how to run their business. That is good enough reasoning to not apporve of this measure. But why call it censorship? Nobody is getting rid of anything, just wanting MORE opinions. So, why not just call it what it is?

nickolas, that is not censorship...I am not saying it is right, I am saying call it what it is...

funny, it is the network claiming 'fair and balanced' who has the hardest time with allowing opposing viewpoints...

I have also been told that the beauty of Fox news is that they are not being funded by people trying to push an agenda...if that is the case, then why would you care whether or not the advertisers have an agenda, if those things don;t control you? i am hearing a lot of double talk on this one...

I don;t recall anything about 'forcing people to say things'..it is about forcing news networks to air those things...again, not supporting it, just saying, this is not censorship.

laissez faire, I assume you mean 24 hours MINUS the time spent on advertisements...

Chsel, you got it!

Answer 1

Its not censorship but it is regulation. I don't believe the government should force a network into doing what they don't want to do. There are many different views on tv just try to find that channel. But I like the internet more.

Answer 2

It's de facto censorship... every moon bat kook will crawl out from under his rock and demand equal time. This would be economical impossible for *any* radio station to accommodate. Therefore they will quit broadcasting *any* opinions at all. That, my dear, is de facto censorship.
In fact there is no reason for that law. Anyone can go into the free market and have a talk radio program. Air America (among others) did that and failed miserably. It is the height of arrogance to *FORCE* people to listen to something that they don't like. It's called "FREE SPEECH" and it doesn't mean that I have to listen!

Answer 3

I don't consider the Fairness Doctrine to be censorship, but I do think it is unnecessary. We are not living in the age I grew up in where there were only 3 stations to choose from. In this day and age you can get news and commentary slanted to whatever viewpoint you choose to hold. I don't like government regulation as a rule because it almost never achieves the desired effect and in most cases it serves only to retard free enterprise.

Answer 4

I'll explain it. By forcing a radio station to air both sides of an issue means that they will be forced to air views that may not get advertising support. The radio station then loses money because advertisers won't advertise. The radio station goes bankrupt. Hence no views are broadcast now.

The Fairness doctrine will eliminate Radio stations and hence talk radio. That is why it is being pushed.

I agree it isn't direct censorship. But it leads to censorship and that is the goal of the people who are pushing the fairness doctrine.

There is no question fox news is biased, but the fact is ALL news media has bias. That is why we need as many independent news outlets as possible.

I don't agree that the government should have any hand in dictating what a news organization can and can't broadcast.

Answer 5

Are you referring to the Fairness Doctrine by chance?

OK, here's how it's censorship. An AM talk radio station chooses to air 24 hours of conservative viewpoint. The Fairness Doctrine comes in and says, "you gotta have equal time for opposing views." So now the conservatives are silenced for 12 hours a day.

With todays multiple avenues of getting news and opinion, namely TV, Radio, blogs, newspapers, magazines, political web sites, political parties, etc., there is really no need for the gov't to come in and tell broadcasters to silence their programming half the time.

Suggest you re-examine the "fair and balanced" network. When they have round table discussions, there are usually several for each side. Then check out CNN and others. They usually have only 1 token conservative.

To Arbgre555 - The fairness doctrine fits your definition #1. The government objects to certain kinds of speech, so it enacts a law to reduce that speech. Sounds like censorship to me.

Answer 6

There is nothing wrong with that unless it's done through coercion, which in this case it would be.

Neal Boortz for instance is employed by COX. The Cox folks are liberals, Neal is not liberal. He has high ratings, advertisers who are clamoring to get recognition on a highly rated show, and is not told what to say. A true example of freedom of speech. Will the liberal side of the fence be able to draw in big money advertisers to justify their points of view? Will they make money for Cox, like Neal does? Will they be able to generate the audience that he does?

It's supply and demand. He supplies by demand.

Let those who want their opinions heard go to another station and do just that. That way both sides are represented. But if one doesn't make it.. So be it. :)

Answer 7

What is this in reference to?

Answer 8

I agree. It's not exactly censorship, but I don't think the government has any right to stick their noses into the the shows aired on private radio stations.
What would be next? Could they make TV station air commercials for the competitors of their payed sponsors?

Answer 9

Hey all you rightwing goofballs. What you obviously don't understand is that broadcast spectrum is managed in trust for the public by the FCC. Individual capitalist lease the spectrum from the government through licensing fees. Radio stations do not own the airwaves. Get that through your thick ideological skulls.

Before Reagan ended the fairness doctrine it had worked fine for 60 years and helped keep this nation from falling into the pathetic narcissistic morasse we see exemplified here every day.

The first thing a progressive president should do is fire all the FCC commissioners and re-staff the place with people who understand the importance of an exchange of ideas and the fact that biased broadcasting is essentially an assault on democracy.

Answer 10

i'm not against gay marriage because of undeniable fact that homosexuality is evil. i'm against it because of undeniable fact that marriage is holy. perhaps homosexuality isn't a approved subject. although, marriage is. Marriage licenses are given by potential of the federal government. Biblical marriage consists of a million guy and one woman, and any sexual sport exterior of that union is against the regulation. That being stated, the importance of marriage is declining in our society. we've all heard approximately hovering divorce quotes. As Christians, i think our criminal duty isn't to condemn each and each individual (homosexuals, drug addicts, abusive persons) prevalent on their rebellion in direction of or failure to conform with our ideals, although to inspire the importance of marriage to be restored. i could think it rather is purely as disgusting to God to work out a under the impression of alcohol heterosexual couple that purely met get married in Vegas as that's to work out a gay couple get married. the two couples are embracing a sinful way of existence, and each and each are taking the Biblical definition of marriage lightly. with a view to deter the divorce cost, Texas had began charging one greater value for couples who want a marriage license and have not had premarital counseling. i think it is the stunning proposal. The separation of church and state is a properly proposal, although i don't think that's totally sensible. If we were to objective this, marriage would not be a approved subject to commence with, as that's God-ordained.